>> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter word for word recaps the paper you. -- the day for you. stay up-to-date with everything happening in washington each day. subscribe today or visit c-span.org/connect to subscribe anytime. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these

television companies and more including cox. >> over can be hard but squatting at an internet diner can be hard. host: washington journal for august 29, nasa will launch its artemis 1 rocket, a test flight that could start the process of sending astronauts back to the moon. the nasa led project has suffered delays and excessive cost overruns. some question if space exploration is worth the cost. that's what we will ask you when it comes to u.s. space exploration. is it worth the cost.

if you say yes, call (202) 748-8000. if you say no it is not, (202) 748-8001. if you are not sure, give us a call at 8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. you can also follow the show on instagram. yahoo! news takes a look at the cost of the artemis program, which will launch at 833 a.m. today. when it comes to comparisons, the james webb telescope cost less than $10 billion. the artemis program is expected to be $90 billion by 2025. the mission will be the first and only rigorous test of the

rocket and space capsule that takes astronauts around the moon. they will begin building a research station. more stories about that launch window at 8:33 a.m. when it comes to exploration and your thoughts on whether it's worth the cost that we spend on these programs, you can give us a call. if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. if you say no (202) 748-8001. if you are not sure, 8002. if you go to the website, they are asking people if space is a good investment. this is a recent poll. when it comes to the rate down, for those under 30 who responded , it was 29% said space is a

very good investment. a good deal saint it was a somewhat good investment. and it comes to 30-44, that drops to 26% saying it was a good investment. 45-64, 35%. last year, they asked americans about sending people back to the moon. and also to mars, which is the emphasis of the artemis mission. when it comes to sending people to the moon it, it was 52% in a poll taken last year it saying they approved of that. even when it comes to political breakdowns, it was 53% of democrats and 59% of republicans and 54% of independents.

those increase when you talk about sending people to mars. 53% of adults said exploring mars was worth the cost there was a tie of those when it comes to. you can tell us in this first 45 minutes of the program what you think about the money that is spent exploring space and if you think it's worth the cost. you can post on our twitter feed. if you want to, you can start watching the coverage of the launch on our regular network. you can watch it on c-span. you can also watch it on our c-span app. if you wish, you can follow along on the website. the administrator told nelson is leading up to the test today.

they were talking about various aspects. it was saturday when administrator nelson talked about deep space exploration and why he thinks it benefits people in general. >> we are explorers and adventurers as a species. that basically is the fulfillment of our destiny. but, in then exploration, we will learn new things and develop new things that are going to improve as it's been under our space program. last week, i was in kansas. i was with a corn farmer. we are giving him real time information on the moisture content of the soil in this crop and to it. he knows what to plant.

those instruments obviously can pick up disease. they can pick up disease and forest, which become susceptible to fire. that is certainly going to help our life here on earth. those are things that have come out of the space program, things we can't even think of. host: the numbers will be on the screen if you want to call. (202) 748-8000 if you think space exploration is worth it. (202) 748-8001 if you think it is not. our first color is from washington is on the yes line. caller: i think space travel is worth it. if you compare the amount to

what we spend on the military, we spend almost nothing on space travel. the annual defense expenditure far outpaces and exceeds what we spend on at nasa. if the nations beliefs are expressed in what they spend their money on, like people's beliefs are expressed, we really care more about the defense industry and other things. host: what do you think we get back in return? caller: i think we learn about how we integrate into the universe. things outside this planet affect us. host: that is our caller from tacoma washington. when it comes to spending, the general accountability office took a look at spending my nasa. the washington post except that.

in 2019, a report found that nasa continued to pay tens of millions of dollars in awards fees to boeing for scoring high on the performance evaluations. delays mounted after the significant schedule delays caused nasa to restructure flight manifests for the space launch system earlier this year. the inspector general told congress the office it calculated three flights. that is $4 billion each. nasa and boeing pushed back on that. it included all sorts of unrelated costs. the person calculated that the per launch cost would be between 876 billy -- $876 million.

when it comes to the actual cost of the program own it comes to the costs involved, is it worth it in the end? don in michigan says no. caller: i don't see -- if we can't even take care of error seniors and are so security that is about to end, we can't afford that. that is going to run out. the seniors are getting piss port for a check. we can still spend $90 billion to go to space. what are we going to gain by spending that money going to space? i am against it. i think we need to put it in the economy and help out the people, especially the seniors which nobody seems to talk about anymore. try living on that kind of money.

i have no 401(k). i have no additional savings. i am trying to get by on that. it is very hard, especially with today's prices. host: that was don in michigan. some of the responding through texts and tweets. this is ray in colorado senate essay text. he says: this is larry from new jersey. some of you are sending texts this morning. this is from steve.

this is from mark, given us his thoughts this morning. if you want to text of morning, you can do that at (202) 748-8003. you can also tweet us if you wish at our twitter feed. the wall street journal looks at some of the businesses behind the launch. this is from their business section, same boeing had struggled recently, including management problems.

this also includes a chart, looking at the contractors involved with nasa currently. at the top of the list, the california institute of tech algae with their dollars obligated for 2021 in billions. $1.6 billion from boeing. spacex, $1.63 billion. lockheed martin, 1.3 and change. you can see that list on the website for the wall street journal. we will hear next from one to. wanda is in texas.

good morning. caller: good morning. we have people homeless living on the streets. we spend more money on prisons than we spend on education. we want to spend -- they're just printing money. it makes no sense to me. the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. boeing is going to make money. when we going to take care of climate change? we don't believe in that science. it's just crazy. everybody is getting rich. host: that was wanda in texas. let's go to jay in nebraska. go ahead. caller: i will say this, the reason why i think we are in favor of it is part of the

reason why sls has taken so long to get built is it wasn't funded like it was back in the glory days of apollo where it was about nasa getting 4% of the national budget year-to-year. these days, nasa funding is only about 0.4%. as a result, everything has to be stretched out and go on longer. by doing that, you can't necessarily fund the building of rockets in parallel to where we could get a flight program done relatively quickly. after this goes up, we are 2.5 years away from the next one. we still don't even have a lander designed yet. we're still trying to iron out the spacecraft as well. as to why we should do it, during the apollo program there were a lot of take logical

spinoffs. 10 years after apollo, when i was growing up, i remember the pc computer revolution where everybody had a home computer. part of that was down to the investment in the infrastructure were nobody knew quite what spinoffs we were going to get. a lot of hardware was built. the price eventually went down. we had home computers by the 80's. when i was going through high school, i started out touch typing in class like everybody else. by the time i got to my junior in senior year, i was writing papers with word processing software. that's how quick things can happen. host: that was jay in nebraska making the case for nasa. 26 billion dollars was their request when it comes to that.

7.5% is slated for deeps place -- deep space exploration. just to give you a sense of the budget when it comes to nasa, when you come to that kind of spending, what you think about the worth of it? is there value for the taxpayer? if you say it is worth it, (202) 748-8000 is the number to call. (202) 748-8001 if you say no it is not. this is new hampshire. go ahead. caller: good morning. i feel the priorities are misplaced. the lady a couple of colors back indicated problems we have, mental health problems that aren't being addressed, we have homelessness that's not being addressed.

so many issues that our world has so many problems. i just don't understand the policy, the director was on talking about farms and knowing what to plant. it seems like technology has replaced our brain. we have cars you don't need to know how to parallel park anymore. you don't have to turn your headlights on or off. i don't know. as you age, more use your brain the better. with technology, we are heading in a different direction. have a great day. host: will is in south carolina also on the no line. caller: i have one main question

i want to ask. i am a guy that digs into facts and looks up certain things. my main issue is if you take it back, why are we so concerned with antarctica first? me personally, there is no such thing as space in my opinion. we've never been there. basically, milking the taxpayers for their money to do mindless experiments and tell yo something that is not true. we can't prove it ourselves. i think it's not fair that american taxpayers have to pay for somebody else's experiment.

we've already seen that doesn't workforce. we have mental illness, veterans who fought for this country, who died for this country. i see them again for change. host: what do you base that on scientifically? caller: you want to go biblically, if you want to go back before the round globe that was put before us in the late 60's. let's be for real. host: what do you base it on specifically? caller: there isbecause the land is cumbered in a firmament. host: ok. thomas is in pennsylvania on the gas line. hello. thomas in pennsylvania?

one more time for thomas. ok. we will go on. we will hear from joe. joe in washington dc, also on the gas line. go ahead. caller: good morning. flat earth, that's tough. i'm going to say it's worth it. i do agree with a lot of the collars that are saying we have so many problems here on earth, whether it's mental health or homelessness or seniors that are losing benefits. i just don't know why those conversations are only had when the conversations around something like space exploration, which does have benefits. our military spending is what the caller from tacoma product. exponentially larger that we spend on space right now. there are other areas of

mismanaged money in the government that could be diverted to those causes. the idea that space exploration and nasa are a waste of money completely is ludicrous. this could be our last shop of when we run out of resources here on earth. i don't see us turning back the wave of earth warming and human induced climate change next few years. it gives it a new meeting. that's where we are going to have to go if we survive as a species. host: the rest of you can call if you are interested in the artemis launch.

give us a call on the lines if you think the exploration of spaces worth it. we have shots from florida as the rocket is getting prepared for its launch later on this morning. that is the space launch system, the or ryan spacecraft. the associated press -- when it comes to that capsule, the flight of the space capsule is supposed to last six weeks until the pacific splashed down, twice as long as astronaut trips. it will take nearly one week to reach the moon. the capsule will enter a distant orbit with the farpoint of 38,000 miles. it is farther than apollo. the big test comes at the mission and as it hits the atmosphere at 25,000 miles per

hour. the heat shield uses the same material as the apollo capsule to withstand reentry temperatures of 5000 degrees. that is some of the reporting today when it comes to the launch. stay close to c-span for coverage we will show you throughout the morning. more of you responding this morning. this is from our twitter feed. we don't need to go to space right now. another viewer saying that will this be spewing carbon into the atmosphere? another viewer, this is peter.

from jr: again, that are some of you responding to this idea of space exploration, what it offers the taxpayer. hello. caller: good morning. i believe that it's a waste. as a commercial driver, it takes 36 hours to take amtrak from upstate new york to mississippi. i can drive it in my car in 19 hours. that makes no sense to have

high-speed trains in italy and china and singapore. how about we solve some of the terrestrial problems here first. have a good day. host: sean in chicago on the yes line. caller: good morning. i hope you're doing well there today. my father was an engineer at the university of chicago. he worked on all the projects that made this country great. it seems like the level of disinformation, the lack of education and the lack of vision being heard by some of our viewers is seeping from our politics into our mental state. the space program is the append me of everything great in this

country, everything that we strive for. i'm an environmentalist. there are tons of things in this country that need to have high priority. the space program breaks ground on all scientific yields. short of being a science denier, there is no way we should shut off the space program. it breaks down terriers in science that cannot be addressed in any other. medical. medical research that happened on the space shuttle that could not be done here in our atmosphere. plus, all the science that is developed specifically for these purposes. i agree with the collar that said waste needs to be reined in. we need to appropriate logically.

cutting the space program is not the pronghorn how about we cuss the politicians who are science and covid deniers. now they are coming after nasa? it's insanity to hear what's happening. we are going backwards. host: mike is in florida. it go ahead. -- go ahead. caller: first of all, i like to go to the moon or mars. we have a lot of problems here. we should solve our problems here. then we can think about going to the moon to find life there.

we have a lot of problems. with the full -- host: go ahead. ok. that was mike in florida. those are pictures from nasa that we are showing you of the artemis rocket. this is expected to launch later today. it's an unmanned mission. it was built by several contractors who make the journey around the moon. it starts the process of eventually going back to the moon with a manned mission, with hopes to go even further with the destination of mars. that starts with today's launch. you can follow along on c-span now. you can give us your thoughts on

the spending of this project and whether you think space exploration is an overall pursuit. various people are calling. this is harold in pennsylvania on the yes line. hello. caller: good morning. i'm a 66-year-old retired navy veteran. i was actually on 18 can and we used to watch the space launches off the florida coast. i really believe that we waited too long to do this again. we have put so much time and effort into the space station. i think we need to go to the moon and we need to put people on the moon just to keep our lifestyle going. host: what do you mean by that? caller: i'm thinking that in the future, this planet may have to expand its population someplace

else. host: as far as the argument that we've been to the moon it, why go back, mars is the destination. is that a worthwhile argument? caller: i think the moon is more pliable. i think that would be the best plate to -- place to start. let's go to the moon and make sure we can set up first. host: that was harold in pennsylvania. earlier this year, the nasa administrator was before congress, he was asked about the cost of various programs. he was asked about that. >> nasa projects are experiencing the largest collective cost and schedule overruns since they began reporting in 2009. the overruns can't be attributed

covid alone. many projects have design changes that led to modifications and schedule slippage. the budget pressure is delaying launch dates. can you help us understand what you are working on to improve these projects? what do you see improvement anytime soon and our ability to manage those? >> there had better be. you are exactly right. there is no excuse for cost overruns. the old way of doing things was always cost-plus. because of the competition we've been talking about, we've been moving to the fixed price.

under procurement law, those that we can't do cost-plus, we are moving to really crack down on them. host: there are some detailed graphics about the artemis want rocket. this is from the washington post. this is the upper stage, the orion spacecraft. it sits on the core stage of the roosters. this was hydrogen fuel. the solid rocket boosters, there are two of them repurposed from the space shuttle for this mission as well as other aspects. when it comes to the rocket itself, this is the launch cover. it's an unmanned mission this time around. the crew module is there along with the service module and other parts of the technology.

these graphics are courtesy of the washington post. you will see a launch later on this morning as we watch it with you from florida. this is sean in kentucky. go ahead. caller: thank you. it morning. if we don't with, the chinese will do it. we certainly don't want the chinese to dominate space. i think would be very important for us to have a counterbalance to the rise in power. host: you think the moon becomes that next frontier when it comes to dominance between countries? caller: i think so. because the former soviet union no longer has that. i think it would be very important. there are resources out there on the asteroid belt.

the only way to get them is the ocean. it's pretty difficult i think. i think space will be the next frontier. i think the country -- i think it's for national pride. host: that is sean in kentucky. this is edgar in maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for your show. we should be going to the moon. we should keep going. it's worth the cost. we should start bringing the resources. it would pay for itself by selling it here. host: when you say it's worth

the cost, what you mean i that? caller: for example, bringing the beautiful things from the moon, resources like the rocks and whatever we can find and sell it here. host: this is from matthew in maryland. you are next up. caller: i think america has been at the forefront of cutting edge science in our day and age. america cannot go back on this advantage in the world. space exploration will bring about other scientific discoveries in the world as we have seen with the spaceship and the discovery of the cell phone and other scientific advantages

that are being discovered by america. we cannot give up this battle. some of the things they are talking about should be addressed in congress like homelessness and poverty and so forth. it could be effectively addressed by congress. building that is bringing about these problems that we are talking about, the things we perceive in society today, that should not be the reason for not going forward. america should be in the drivers seat. that's my only qualm about this. host: that was matthew in maryland. the washington post highlighting when it comes to the rocket you see on television now, not only

has it never flown, nasa struggled with the challenges to prepare it for flight. sensors detected a problem with the hydraulic system. that cut short and engine test last year. earlier, assimilate countdown was marred by a hydrogen leak. there is nothing simple about the sls. it holds 700,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.

stay close to c-span's we show you the coverage of this rocket launch today it's expected today from -- today. leah in washington. that was leah from a viewer off twitter. another twitter viewer saying: this is mark texting us from florida. some of the thoughts of twitter.

if you want to share that. ron is in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. my contention is i'm not against science or exploration. the next frontier should be here. before we go to mars or think about going to mars, we should clean this planet up. we should find what's going on in the oceans and fix the planet so it is livable again. make sure the atmosphere is breathable. i'm not against exploration. i saw a program on pbs talking to and after. he said going to mars would take about one year. they would need something the size of a mothership to travel that distance and having all the medical supplies and personnel on that ship.

would you want to travel one year to a planet? i don't think so. we don't have the technology right now. we will have to use the moon as a launching pad because the gravitational pull is not as great. we probably won't see it in my lifetime. host: would you advocate for a suspension of these programs? is there a balance you would be comfortable with? caller: how about privatizing it. we always are republicans talking about privatizing. let's privatize space travel. let corporations do it. host: which we see with spacex and the like. you've seen that with spacex and things like that. caller: yes. i think that would work. host: that was ron in

pennsylvania. legislators are commenting on the launch as well. that is from her twitter feed this morning. let's hear from bruce in arkansas. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning to you. i am all for exploration. i believe we are being repressed psychologically -- technologically speaking. this is my first time. we do have the technology now to have self charging vehicles.

i don't know why they won't push it forward. there should be some kind of format where they can discuss this. host: it's basal exploration something you would support? caller: yes. i think we were designed to explore that is our next step. host: richard is next in new york. go ahead. caller: i think with americans sleeping in the streets, there is no reason why we have people in the streets. why should we go to mars or the moon? host: why do think canceling

would help in that other thing. why is it in either or thing? caller: billions of dollars with a $30 trillion that which we can't pay and will break the american budget eventually, how can we afford to go to mars when we have people sleeping on the streets? can anybody explain how that is possible? host: we will hear from david in west virginia. you are the last call on this. go ahead. caller: i grew up during the old space exploration of the 60's and 70's. i'm not sure it didn't thing

great for us. host: you say the exploration is worth it? caller: i called on the not sure line. host: thank you for sharing your thoughts nonetheless. that will be the last call on this topic. we will keep showing you pictures of that. we will talk about it later. first, we will talk about something closer when it comes to politics. those are the midterm elections. inside elections will join us for that conversation. later on, you will hear from the nasa deputy or -- deputy. we will talk about the artemis flight and the future of space expiration. those conversations are coming up on washington journal.

>> the immediate career went from stanford connecticut to the new york times, than to cbs news. he finished in 2005. in his short memoir, he writes, there is a great deal of handwringing these days about the news business. young people don't read it, don't know anything beyond what they see on their screens and don't see the value of independent knowledge as long as they have google and can look it up. the sky is falling. >> terrence smith on book notes plus. it's available on the c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts.

>> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the house january 6 committee hearings, investigating the attack on the capital. go to c-span.org, our web resorts page to watch the latest hearings, briefings, lower coverage on the attack and investigation since january 6. we will have reactions from members of congress and the white house as well as journalists and authors talking about the investigation. >> live september 4 on in-depth, steven hayward will be our guest to talk about leadership, ronald reagan, the american conservative movement.

he is the author of several books. join in the conversation with your phone calls, comments, texts, and tweets. in depth with steven hayward, september 4 at noon on tv. >> washington journal continues. host: this is jacob from inside elections. he is the reporter and analyst. he follows the midterm elections and where things stand. if you look at some of the headlines from the papers when it comes to the november elections, this is from the new york times saying when it comes to the republicans, there is hope. if we go to the wall street journal, it says what frightens democrats.

what do the numbers tell us? guest: historically speaking, the party out of the white house gain seats in midterm elections. that's a trend throughout the entire modern era going back one century. the wide expectation was that republicans would have a very successful midterm election. since we got into the summer, thinks of happened, the supreme court decision, movement on legislation that has tempered republican hopes and given democrats newfound enthusiasm. the bigger picture here is house and senate democrats are clinging to such small majorities. we don't need a republican wave for republicans to take back control of congress. when they were a republican at ripple. even his democrats feel more comfortable given the events of

the last month or so, they are in a precarious position. host: how many turnovers on each side have to happen in order for the republicans to gain control to mark -- control? guest: in the senate, it is just one. if republicans gain one seat in that chamber, they flip that control. in the house, democrats have a four seat majority -- majority. the republicans need to flip just for seats. host: both of those sides, you take a look at tossup's and the races to watch. what are the races to watch on either side. guest: in the senate, we are focusing on nine races at the moment. they are going to be the most competitive and determine who is going to have control of congress. those are the five republican held open seats.

on the democratic side, we've got seats where you have vulnerable incumbents in nevada, georgia, arizona, new hampshire. host: as far as the spending going on, what kind of spending is being done by the campaigns and what is a doing to make sure that happens? guest: one of the interesting things we've seen over the last couple of cycles as democrats build up a ferocious advantage when it comes to fundraising. we see not just democratic incumbents but challengers on the house and senate side out raising their republican opponents. that gives them an advantage.

it also alters the strategy of how republicans take back the chambers, in the senate we've seen a lot of the spending burden fall on outside groups like the senate leadership fund, which is a super pac associate with mitch mcconnell. it has had to step in in these races like ohio where they are spending 28 million dollars because the candidate j.d. vance has not been able to keep up pace and fundraising. a lot of that emphasis has fallen on the outside groups to pick up the slack where the candidates are struggling. host: kevin mccarthy's super pac will spend close to $30 million this fall to ensure that they gain victory. guest: the congressional leadership fund will be playing a huge role. the house republicans are in a slightly utter position because

house candidates don't have to raise as much money. they have less far to go to begin with. republicans in the house have quite a few solid candidates who been able to raise money. they have brought candidates who lost closer than expected races in 2020. the house map is more favorable to republicans. it is less of a lift on all fronts. host: our guest is with us until 8:30 a.m. if you have questions, you can call us on the lines aired (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8000 democrats. independents (202) 748-8002. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. let's talk about those senate

races. we know the characters, we've heard their names. remind us who is at plate. guest: it's an open seat. pat toomey is not seeking reelection. democrats nominated the lieutenant governor. he is six feet nine. he has tattoos on his arms. republicans nominated dr. oz. he does not have strong roots to pennsylvania but was endorsed by trump in the primary. he's been struggling ever since to raise money and solidify his position, not just among the broader electorate, but even among republicans. he has struggled to win over the voters. if he's not able to consolidate the base, he can fit about -- forget about winning independence. he's going to have a tough time winning that senate race this fall. host: why is that?

guest: it's a number of things. this is a guy who is a relative newcomer to the conservative movement. he's been on tv for two decades. he has taken stances on social issues that are not home with the republican party today. he is done quite a bit of work. he's been on tv with michelle obama. he's only recently reframed himself as a republican. there is a healthy degree of skepticism about where he stands. he's not from pennsylvania. he went to medical school there. he is primarily in new jersey. he moved back into pennsylvania purely to run for this senate seat. he hasn't been able to explain convincingly why he's the best person to represent this state.

host: we will show you some of the ads. these are from dr. oz and john fetterman. >> people put their lives in my hands. patients trusted me. that's not how washington works. they are facing inflation, lives unraveling. john fetterman spent a career taking things worse. i will bring change to our divided nation. >> i'm john fetterman and i approve this message. our economy is a mess because of washington. the rich and powerful and the lobbyists are lined about me to take the heat off themselves. they set the rules, they weakened our supply chain and spiked inflation. we can fix our economy. we must make more stuff in america, cut taxes for waking

family. congress shouldn't pay in the stock market. that's what i believe in. host: two different messages that are reflective of their campaigns. guest: the dr. oz campaign has tried to paint fetterman as a randleman -- radical. that is really the main message they are trying to drive home, he is too far to the left the fetterman ad is interesting. there are two ways to look at that campaign. if you spend your time on twitter, you have one sense of what the campaign is doing, which is a very social media heavy -- they do a lot of memes. they focus on making fun of dr. oz and ribbing him for his weak ties to pennsylvania. on tv, it's a different message. it's about economics and coming

out of this small town. it's a very manufacturing based message. it's a much more blue-collar appeal on the tv ads than what they are putting out online. it's always interesting to see what candidates are saying to the audience and the viewership online versus what they say to the voters in state over the airwaves. host: why is that not transferring? we saw pat toomey when reelection in that state. guest: pat toomey 12 very narrow victories into good republican years in pennsylvania. he defeated arlen specter in 2010. -- he had come out of that contested primary.

he was not -- he struggled with democrats in washington. he did not get the support he could have. that was a great year for republicans. in 2016, pat toomey was able to win by a very narrow margin. now there is an open seat which is more competitive. the reality is pat toomey was a longtime congressman and had led one of the largest republican groups in washington after he left congress. he had those relationships. that allowed him to be a very successful senate nominee, even though he was conservative. he is an anti-trump, he voted to convict the former president. it's not so much about the politics and the stance dr. oz has. he's new at this.

it's a very different ball game be running for office then running a talk show on tv. he has struggled to put his campaign in the position to win. he's only got a few months to turn things around. host: we saw mitch mcconnell talk about the quality of candidates for cycle. that was a question posed to marco rubio over the weekend. i want you to listen to his response. >> are you afraid the quality of the senate candidates the republicans are fielding around the country are not of the highest quality? you are in line to be the chairman of the intelligence committee of republicans gain control of the senate. it looks like you have a number of candidates that are in real trouble around the country because of some of their extreme positions. >> there is a lot of drama that

goes on and then everything settles in. i think voters will make these determinations. there are a lot of are people out there who are political reporters and they are told " we need content over the summer." we will see how this plays out. every single republican nominee in the country are a product of who the people in their state chose to be there nominee. some of them will ever perform. there are candidates on both sides who will over perform. i do not really -- i am not really involved in that power gain. i have my own work i am involved in. host: is not a matter of attention? guest: i think traditionally speaking, voters tend to turn in post-summer, but the problem

here is the money really talks louder than the words and a lot of these races, and we have seen republicans pouring money into the most competitive senate races, like i mentioned that 20 $8 million commitment in ohio -- $28 million commitment in ohio. we have seen them spent millions of dollars attacking democratic incumbents across the state. they would not be spending that money, if they truly believe no one was paying attention until september 1. the fact that both parties have spent a tremendous amount of resources on these races already suggests people are paying attention. what happens no does matter -- now does matter and every vote they lose now is a vote they will have to win back later in

the fall when voter attention is more divided. republican candidates are in a whole now. that is the obvious -- a hole now. that is the obvious truth. if the election was held today, they would be in trouble in places where they really should not be in trouble. in a state like ohio or in earth -- for north carolina where republicans have some structural advantages there is time to write the ship. it is not a lost cause just because you are down in the polls -- right the ship. it is not a lost cause just because you are down in the polls. we have seen this again in special elections over the summer, races in minnesota, and nebraska, and most recently in upstate new york, where turnout

has exceeded expectations. voters are clearly fired up on both sides and showing up to vote even in these late summer one-off elections. host: silver on our independent line. go ahead. caller: i would like to know why there is so much lying. ever since trump has been in their, everyone seems to be some sort of liar. who gets the bigger a lot -- biggest liar? i can't believe all of the stories they put out there. you turn around and say " geez, that's ally -- a lie!" they are not fooling anybody. guest: politics can be a messy field.

there are lots of incentives to get votes or to get fundraising dollars to stretch the truth, bend the truth. that is why it is important to have a strong media, to have information available to voters, for folks to go out and interrogate, and interview, and understand the politics surrounding them on their own and not have to rely just on the words coming out of candidates' mouse. this -- candidates' mouths. president trump lied in a way that a lot of former president's did not but it is not as if he was the first person to do that. this is something that has been plugging politics into the political field since the

invention of politics. host: from new hampshire, this is fran,democrats' line -- fran, democrats' line. caller: do you think republicans realize that people my age, that is older than 50, know where the mute button is? we are just muting them. they are throwing their money away. i think they need to be aware of the fact that people simply aren't listening anymore. they have had it with the message thank you very much. stop burdening us with every single spare minute of advertising. guest: it is tough to be a swing state motor sometimes in a state such as -- voter sometimes in a

state such as new hampshire! it will only get worse up to november. there are real issues with oversaturation. tv is not a precise instrument when it comes to advertising. you have to put that message in front of quite a few more people than are going to be receptive to it. it is still the most effective tool that campaigns have and about is why we see so much tv spending that really drives the spending on all other elements of politics -- spending on all other elements of politics. we may be moving to a universe where voters really have had enough and as they cut cords and as nightly news viewership goes down, we may see more and more resources switch to digital advertising. direct mail is still a very

large expenditure. voters are tired in a lot of ways. candidates know this. for the moment, all of the data suggests that television advertising, as annoying and omnipresent as it can be, is the best way to reach the biggest number of voters. host: we will show you a couple of ads from ohio. this one is from representative tim ryan and j.d. vance. [video clip] >> j.d. vance promised to fund the opioid crisis. vance brought a big firm funded mouthpiece to ohio. she called oxy a godsend. big firm i kept pills. j.d. vance didn't help. he made it worse. >> our family story is an ohio

story. my husband grew up in middletown and things were not easy. his mom struggled with addiction and his dad was not there. he was raised by a loving grandmother and he served his country in iraq. he is an incredible father and my best friend. he once for ohio what ohio gave him -- wants for ohio what ohio gave him, a fighting chance. guest: this race should not be as competitive as it is. ohio is a republican state. donald trump won the state in 2016. he won it in 2020. republicans won the governorship in 2018 and they are poised to win the governorship in 2022. this race has cracked into the

most competitive of the cycle, and that is because of who the candidates are. on the democratic side, tha -- tim ryan is a longtime congressman. he used to win big victories in ohio. he has parlayed that into a really robust campaign. is also a very good fundraiser and has the resources to get that message out. on the flipside, we have j.d. vance, a first-time candidate and author of " hillbilly elegy," won a very crowded republican primary, did not raise a lot of money in that race, benefited mostly from a pac set up a by his mentor. he has struggled to connect with voters on the field and has

created a whole for tim ryan's dollars to go further over the summer. j.d. vance has not been on tv until recently, and is really struggling. these 2 ads are emblematic of the campaigns both candidates are trying to run. the tim ryan ad is taking one of j.d. vance's greatest strengths, he is known for being oval police of the poor south and saying -- a voice of the poor south and saying " he is not genuine," attacking him on this issue of the opioid crisis, hoping to neutralize one of his primary strengths. we saw that j.d. vance add. that got up late in the game. tim ryan had been on tv for a long time until -- vance has not

been able to bring in the dollars he needs to run a full-fledged campaign in ohio, so that ad featuring his wife directed camera trying to soft in his image at a time when republicans are struggling with the politics of the coast- -- post-roe era. now that roe v. wade has been overturned, there is more skepticism of those positions, so putting his wife directed, to camera talking about how he is a family man and being a marine, encapsulates what j.d. vance is trying to do. host: democrats say issues like the abortion vote will drive people to polls in november. republicans say issues of the economy will drive people.

which is correct or are they both correct? guest: they are both correct. some voters will care about economic issues. some voters will care about abortion issues. some voters will care about both of them. it is not as easy as saying " the economy is the number one issue." voters are complex. the decision process behind choosing who to vote for rarely comes down to a single yes or no question for most people. there are data points that point to abortion politics being incredibly salient heading into the fall. we saw that referendum in kansas. there was a ballot measure that would have stripped the right to an abortion out of the constitution. voters overwhelmingly defeated that measure, even though kansas is a republican state. in new york's 19th district, the

republican there made abortion rights one of his primary selling points. we saw him win a narrow victory over the republican, mike miller naro who had more pro-life stances. in both of those races, we saw turnout levels far exceeding what was expected. we had over 130,000 people cast ballots in new york's 19th. turnout in kansas was almost equivalent to turnout in a general election, which is practically unheard of in a primary. thoroughly the issueis striking out voters' fears -- issue is striking at voters' theaters. voters care about what is happening to their -- voters' fears. voters care about what is happening to their pocketbooks. we see the cost of living and

the economy ranks as the number one issue, so it is not as if republicans are now dead in the water because of this situation, but democrats have an angle they can use and are using quite effectively, that they did not have at the beginning of the year. host: jacob is joining us for this conversation. let's hear from sharon in new york, independent line. caller: i'm talking about the abortion issue. i feel that we are not the church of the united states. we are the united states. the religion of people who believe that it is a sin should stick with the religion. i was taught about the separation of church and state and we do not have that now and i think that should be looked at and brought to people's attention. another thing i have to say is i

feel that president biden should think about adding to the supreme court so that we can have an even balance of different beliefs. thank you very much. guest: this is one of the more interesting aspects that has gone unremarked upon when it goes to the aftermath of the dobbs decision. it is a real change in the status quo. it is rare we see these major shifts and changes in the status quo, especially when it cuts against the party in power in washington. when a party passes big legislation, there is a reaction to that change, but democrats won a narrow majority in congress and the white house,

came into power and the status quo change was still in the opposite direction. it was in the conservative direction. i think there is an element of this change that perhaps does make it more salient, given that it is bringing things back to a status quote that was over half a century old. we are still kind of just learning what that looks like and just beginning to understand. it will not end in november. this is going to be a learning process for a lot of people across the country of what the post-grow universe looks like -- post-roe universe looks like. this is a growing belief among democrats. they look at what happened under the trump administration, the holding open of antonin scalia a's seat in the final year of

obama's presidency, the amy coney barrett hearing -- appointment. they feel there should be an extension to the court. the most vocal proponent of expanding the court in congress was mondaire jones, the congressman from the hudson valley who had authored the bill to add justices to the supreme court, and he will not be returning to congress. he lost his primary election last week. there are others who certainly take that stance, but they will have to step up and to the new messengers of that now that congressman jones is headed out of congress. host: republican line, hi. caller: in response to the lady who just spoke, we are often told that if we do not study history we are almost sure to

repeat history. i just want to speak to my christian brothers. we need to stop voting according to feelings. it is time to consider god. in revelations 2:14 we heard about bail him trying to teach - ba -- balaam trying to teach sexual immoralities. the fbi has been protecting the crimes committed by the biden family. host: to the midterm elections, do you have a question for our guest. caller: this is my question -- because we are believers and because we believe in god, are we a threat to those who oppose president trump because this generation is not seeking the

prince of peace? host: thanks. guest: as far as president trump so -- host: thanks. as far as president trump's influence on this election, cycle where are we? guest: generally when president's leave office, they do not stay in the spotlight. they retreat to whatever they were doing in their previous lives or early retirement. that is not the case with donald trump. he has maintained his position as the leader of the republican party. he is the most important person in that party and is the clear frontrunner if he chooses to run for president in 2024, which i think he will. the republican party understands that. that is why we have seen a closing in the ranks on every single issue that has been attached to him in the two years

since he has left office. whether that is the immediate aftermath of january 6, the hearings on january 6, the document preservation, republicans have been almost two to a person unwilling to criticize the president or do -- almost to a person unwilling to criticize the president. we have seen his influence in the primaries. we have seen his chosen candidates when very competitive races. herschel walker cleared the field before even announcing his run because he was coming in with trump's endorsement. we saw his influence there. we saw his influence in the election of the house members who try to impeach trump. they almost to a person lost.

there are only 2 republican members of the house who voted to impeach trump who may return. wik -- we may be looking at a congress next term where only one of the republicans who voted to impeach trump keeps their seat. we are seeing a more muscular stance on trump with this issue of classified documents. democrats would still rather be talking about kitchen table issues, but it will be inescapable, the criminal investigation into the former president that we have been seeing play out in real time. host: you mentioned the georgia race briefly. give us the status of that race. at last check, rafael warnock

was pulling ahead of herschel walker. is that still the -- pollin ahead of -- polling ahead of herschel walker. is that still the case ? guest: this is still a state with republican structural advantages. republicans win more than they lose here. rafael warnock is in a competitive election. he is fortunate he gets to run against a candidate like herschel walker who has a lot of vulnerabilities that a more traditional candidate might not have. he has a lot of personal baggage. he has accusations of abuse levied against him and also his tendency to make these offhand comments that strike people the wrong way, talking about how we have too many trees in america,

or that he claimed to have a device that sprayed a mist on you that kills all the covid on your body. the warnock campaign has been litigating that in their race against herschel walker, but this is a margin of error race, and it will remain this way until november because of where the state is. because this is georgia they mean not even ended november. if no one get -- and in -- e nd in november. we could be sitting here on november 9 and not know who controls the united states senate until next month. host: you are on air with jacob rubashkin. caller: like that guy was saying before about all the lies, i do not care what the station i

skipper around to is -- skip around to is, it is full of lies. i cannot wait to get to c-span in the morning. i am a lifelong democrat, but i have a feeling this oz guy is going to win, up here and i will tell you why. i drive a lot between. philadelphia -- between erie and philadelphia and i see oz signs everywhere. it is few and far between to see al federman sign. i think it is because no one knows federman. he has never had a job. he did have a job, but it was a nonpaying job as a mayor of a town of 1700. every year he got $60,000 from his family to support him while

-- he admits he is a daily user of marijuana. i do not think he is known across the state, but when they get to know him it is not a good site. i think federman is going to lose. i think republicans are going to take back the house, and i will be glad when they take back the house, because i want to see a real january 6 committee. this january 6 committee we have had is one-sided. i am embarrassed as a democrat. guest: i think dr. oz should not be counted out at this point. pennsylvania is an evenly divided state. this is a state donald trump won in 20 -- how someone votes in

the united states senate race is how they voted in the presidential race. there is a path for dr. oz to win as a senator in the commonwealth of pennsylvania. , philadelphia, the central pa, and the more rural areas you will have to drive through to get across the state are the areas where, if oz wins -- the path for republicans nowadays is to put up insane margins in the rural areas of the state and living your losses in the suburbs around philadelphia and pittsburgh and hope the democrats do not blow you out of the water in pittsburgh and philadelphia proper. that is how a republican can win

in pennsylvania nowadays. it remains to be seen whether oz will have the motivation at the end of the day to go down that path, but it is possible. there is a long ways to go before the election. federman is definitely not a sure thing. guest: -- host: this is new jersey on the independent line. caller: good morning. the one thing i am bothered with is the 30 second soundbite you get. how can you make a decision without knowing the issues? i'm on long island in new york. they have michelle bond running as a republican. the ads are paid for by a company called crypto innovations. i researched this company.

it is dark money coming into the campaign, and it is getting worse. when are we allowed to choose a candidate? we do not have the money like they do. i want everyone to go on a website, opensecrets.org to see who is getting what is far as campaign money. this is not what elections should be about. we call them free elections. how can we call them free elections when it determines -- money determines who gets in? guest: this is the reality of the post citizens united world. there is a tremendous amount of money that has loaded into our politics. there are a lot of ways at the end of the day to obfuscate where that money is coming from. the rise of the super pac as a n institution has been

amazing to see over the last decade, the sheer amount of dollars being pumped into these independent expenditure organizations. what has ended up happy is outside donors have gotten very savvy about knowing when the reporting deadlines are, when to cut their tax, when to spend their money -- checks, when to spend their money in a way that voters will not know who is funding these elections. you mentioned that race out on long island. in sussex county -- michelle bond is a cryptocurrency entrepreneur. her boyfriend is the coo of one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges in the world. she benefited from quite a bit of cryptocurrency but she did lose and that republican primary. this is a good example of both schools of thought.

on the one hand you have a candidate who is benefiting from a lot of outside money, where it is more difficult or in some cases impossible to find out who is providing the funds. on the other hand, nicola loaded, who was the eventual owner spent less money than her. you mentioned open secrets. i will throw in a plug for them as well. opensecr one of the bestets.org, -- opensecrets.org, one of the best resources in politics. i use it. host: tell us about inside elections. what is it? guest: it is a nonpartisan news and analysis service. we do reporting on every

competitive congressional race in the country, every competitive senate race in the country, governors races and in presidential cycles we write about the presidential cycle. we try to get past of the fuzzy headlines and drill down into the profile of the district, and the profile into the biography of the candidates running, provide our readers with as full and understanding as possible of all 135 of those races in the house and 100 races in the senate, 50 races for governor. we assign a rating to every single race in the country, be that solid republican, solid democratic, tossup, lean democratic, lean republican, to give our voters -- readers a sense of where politics is going in the fall. host: this is andy, republican

line. caller: i do not see very many independents that you are showing or running. are there only the two parties that you o advertiser -- you advertise or do you ever bring a third party in? also, if you can add to this, i saw statistics -- three out of every five christians do not vote. can you tell me why that is? are they seeking perfection, or are they just saying it is the lesser of two evils? guest: i'm not familiar with that particular statistic. the numbers would suggest that in general, not only half of

registered voters vote in any given election. if you get to half in a primary vote, that is a smashing success. by and large, a lot of people are not voting, christians, non-christians, people of every demographic. a lot of them just choose not to vote or cannot vote for a whole number of reasons. to your earlier point about independent candidates, third-party candidates, this has been a feature of american politics since the current two-party system got going at the end of civil war. it is incredibly difficult for third-party candidates to win any federal election. we see greater success from third-party candidates and gubernatorial races. in alaska right now there is a very competitive 3 person race, including a democrat, a

republican, and an independent who was governor of the state as an independent earlier in the decade. one race that has a tinge of this aspect is in utah. senator mike lee is trying to win a third term. his opponent is a an independent candidate. there is no democrat in that race. mcmullen is a former republican. he ran for president in 2013 as a republican. he is trying to make that race competitive at the moment. it is not a true 3 person race. those are very rare when it comes to senate elections. i can only think of one senator who won a true 3-way race with an independent. mcmullen is --

host: one more call. this is from massachusetts. rick, go ahead. caller: i want to make a couple of comments. first, this election, all 50 states are going to get clobbered with this abortion thing. they are realizing that. there are jobs out there. the issue will be abortion. you have a lot of women in out here. trump is still running around her thinking he is present -- here thinking he is president. he isn't going to be the speaker of nothing. i wanted to make this couple of comments, thank you -- those couple of comments, thank you. guest: there is a lot going on

there, a lot of factors going into this election, and a lot of things that are unique. it is not every election cycle that we get a generational supreme court decision a few months before election day. it is not every election that you get a former angling for attention and on a path to his parties -- his party's nomination in four years.we have not had that since grover cleveland. it has been quite a while. we had this historical midterm trend that we pay attention to what we also recognize there are unique circumstances to this race this year, this contest that we are taking into account as we look at things individually and then look at them on a macro level as well. host: before we let you go, a snapshot of the governor's is what is interesting to watch. guest: the governors race, we

have 36 of them on the ballot. the democrats are poised to flip at least a couple of seats. there are republican governors in massachusetts and maryland that are not running for reelection and democrats are well-positioned to win those states back as they are traditionally democratic states. beyond that, democrats are facing quite a few competitive races in states like kansas, wisconsin, and nevada that they flipped in the 2018 election. they also have some pickup opportunities in arizona, georgia, and they are trying to make races competitive in florida and texas as well. host: jacob rubashkin. you can find his website at insideelections.com. thank you for your time today. later on in the program we will talk about that plan to launch

the artemis one rocket with lori garver who has a book out called " escaping gravity," and her experiences with rocket systems and today's launch. speaking of today's launch, the clock is d-40 minutes with some issues -- t-minus 40 minutes with some issues with the rocket that will determine whether it will launch today are not. [video clip] >> this is artemis launch control at t-minus 40 minutes and holding. i just spoke with the launch director thompson who said her team is still working on a troubleshooting plan for engine number 3 that had the issue with

the engine bleed. she is still waiting for more information about that. engineers are still discussing it and going over some modeling and data. once they have that ready they will come back to her and have a discussion. she says she is awaiting that. your standing by -- we are standing by again at t-minus 40 minutes. we will have more information when we get it. >> washington journal continues. host: even as we were telling you about the positive the artemis 1 we have learned it has been paused as far as the launch

for today. we are expecting or nasa expects another try to launch artemis 1 this coming friday, so that is where the rocket will stay at least for now. a lot people gathering in florida. the vice president of the united states expected down there and other officials from washington as well as others interested in spaceflight. it you can talk about artemis 1 as far as its postponed launch. you can talk about other things in the world of politics too if you want in open forum. if you want to call us an open forum, you can do so. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. and independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003.

many of you want to put thoughts on our facebook page. you can also tweet us. we will do open forum until 9: 15. lori garver will join us to talk about issues of spaceflight, including today's flight. bernie sanders asked about that very question when it comes to what he sees happening in the senate. here is a little bit of that from abc yesterday. [video clip] >> how are you feeling about the midterms right now? we know there are a lot of successes for democrats. >> i think that what the supreme court did in saying to every woman in america, " you cannot control your own body," i think

of american people are saying, " excuse me, in america in the year 2022, women will make that decision." i think that decision will reverberate poorly for republicans who think that women do not have the right to control their own bodies. the gun violence we have seen will also play a role. i think there is a reasonable chance that democrats will retain control of the senate. i certainly hope we get more than 50 in the senate, that we get at least 52 so we can protect working people in a way that we have not been able to do up until now. host: one thing coming from the sunday shows as reported from the hill was senator lindsey graham warning of riots in the streets if president donald trump is prosecuted for classified materials found when

fbi searched his mar-a-lago home. he told former congressman trey gowdy the president shared a clip of the interview on his treat social site. the hill keeps reporting on that -- truth social site. the hill keeps reporting on that. in pennsylvania, the republican line, this is julia. caller: hello, everyone. i wanted to comment on the previous -- jacob who was on, talking about the pennsylvania senate race. i believe that no one really knows mr. federman. in my mind he is a flop. i do not understand why he dresses the way he does. he cannot speak a complete

sentence anymore because of his problem with his illness and he says that he comes from a town not far from me. he was from broderick -- roddick -- braddock. that was a minority city, and he left it worse than when he got in, and yet some people think he -- people think he has some sort of great guy. he is a socialist. host: another from pennsylvania, independent line. we will hear from mark. caller: hello, pedro. 2 topics -- first topic is health care, second topic is student loans. in 2009 both were taken over by the federal government. you see where they are today. health care has gotten worse, student loans are causing a problem.

if we do not wake up and get these people out, i am all for term limits. let's take back what is ours. it is we the people. have a great day. host: the post follows up on a story looking at a request by the trump administration, considering the appointment of a person to oversee the documents at mar-a-lago and some of the complications that could result in. legal experts said " the very provisions asked to end of the hearing could render necessary -- federal prosecutors could indicate that the government review is nearly complete and it could provide such a specific accounting of the documents that the judge herself could assess whether they belong to the government. you do not collect this stuff to let it sit there and not get

started. there is public pressure on them,' the story adding that the government could report that it is far along in its review. 'you cannot put the milk back in the bottle.' pointedly she did not tell them to stop." that is just a follow-up story to the events concerning mar-a-lago. this is from manuel in new york, democrats' line. caller: this is manuel, first time caller to c-span from new york. these republicans, i will make it short and sweet, -- god bless. host: ok. we will go next to joe in pennsylvania, democrats' line. caller: this is joe in erie

county, pennsylvania know where lieutenant governor john fetterman opened up his fall campaign after his thing, and he is -- one of the things, and i noticed your guest ahead of you kept referring him as dr. oz and giving him status, but no one prefaces lieutenant governor john fetterman. i've asked several republicans what dr. oz's first name, and they couldn't tell me, they couldn't spell it. he also claims he is a secular muslim. he has never explained that! that is something else that i do

not understand. host: let's hear from john in sherman, texas, democrats' line. caller: hi. about three weeks ago sherman, texas was profiled on cnn news to be one of the most conservative cities in america. onto my question -- why are we never discussing $2 trillion tax cuts and their effects on inflation as well as the loss of revenue to the federal budget? and another issue is how people never discuss the criminal acts of the man running, who wants to run as a republican, and it never comes up in any

discussions on any news programs. it is off the record. it cannot be talked about. host: ok. caller: i had a third one, but i do not remember what it was. host: the u.s. is reporting about two u.s. ships going through the taiwan straight. it is the navy's seventh fleet to saying the u.s. antietam and chandler will conduct the missions in accordance with international law. they transited through a corridor in the street that is beyond the territory of any -- it demonstrates the united states' commitment to a free and open indo pacific. the u.s. navy sales and flies

anywhere international law allows. you can mention that, if you wish on these -- on this open forum. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. in north carolina, we will hear from john next. john, go ahead, republican line. caller: i called independent, i thought. i do not understand why this guys said he would overturn roe v. wade. they just sent -- guy said they overturned roe v. wade. they just sent it back to the states. they talked about the election

in 10 -- 1010 -- 2020. trump didn't lose the election. people just do not understand that people voted twice or three times. i can assure you that. host: you can assure us how? caller: why would they send me 2 ballots, my neighbor three, my neighbor 4. host: did you vote for your sister 3 times? ok. that is john they're on their republican line. let -- there on our republican line. this is a butter from massachusetts. this is robert -- voter from massachusetts. this is robert. caller: shout out to the fourth

engineer battalion -- 84th engineer battalion. host: he got his shout out in. this is protecting to russia and -- pertaining to russia and ukraine. " this footage online is purporting to show soldiers training at a russian military base. they display modern weaponry rarely deployed in ukraine. they play down their chances, better equipment does not necessarily make more effective forces when personnel are not well-trained or disciplined. an open source investigative group on saturday posted photographs of russian equipment on railcars, including missile systems and tanks that are

heading to russia's border with ukraine, citing data published by russia's rail services." darren is next, new mexico, democrats' line. caller: good morning. c-span, longtime watcher, first time caller. i wanted to comment on the remarks made by lindsey graham. being in the former military, if i were to handle military documents like he handled them, i would be in fort leavenworth by now. this is for the republicans -- it is time to get off the trump train. hopefully he will be prosecuted. that is all i got. host: new port richey, florida, republican line. caller: good morning. we need to stop thinking that

anything is free in this country. stop making babies that we cannot afford. you make them, feed them, and care for them. stop segregating yourselves. these same people under government are segregating them all over again. god made us equal. host: are you addressing a certain group of people, ma'am? caller: no. i'm having a conversation with you guys. host: who are the " they you are referencing? caller: everybody in the world who thinks the world owes them something for nothing. we are here to fight. we are here to work. we are here to take care of our families. we are not here to get freebies. i think that is a lot of the problem in this world. host: that is a viewer from florida, republican line. let's hear from paul in texas. paul is on our democrats' line.

caller: how are you? this is almost embarrassing. the republican party is no longer a party -- it is a mob. unfortunately you have a president who has broken the law numerous times. i have not heard of one policy put in place that has cut that but for the most part when they started talking about social security, there are benefits -- they are cutting benefits from veterans. the republican party did not want to sign the bill for veterans on the turn issue. -- burn issue. host: as far as social security, what are you specifically referencing? caller: there is a motion going on in texas being constantly talked about, how the republican party have a five-year plan to

totally eliminate social security and benefits for veterans. sure they passed it, but only -- host: that was a proposal by senator rick scott, making that proposal. people like senator mcconnell did not latch onto the proposal. caller: they said part is it has been ignored. a lot of people passed on. they turned their back on them. if you start talking about law & order, police officers we had a lot of people get killed in the state capital. you are not a party of law & order. you are just the opposite. host: brian is next, brian in ocala, florida, republican line. caller: good morning. there is a wonderful thing going on this morning, hopefully, the

launch. i wonder if we keep spending all the money that we are spending for loans, giving loans away, for student loans, what is going to happen to the money for the space program? the chinese will be ahead of us. host: the launch has been scrubbed as of earlier this morning, just so you know. the color hanged up. on cbs's market watch site, it is what is expected as far as a new covid shot coming up. they are expected to authorize that new shot this week without a stable of the authorization process -- a test to see whether it is safe in humans.

the agency plans to test those shots using research from other sources, such as mice. the performance of earlier iterations of the booster targeting other strains of covid-19. the vaccines are safe, that is fda commissioner in a recent tweet. if you wish you can roll that into open phones. we will do this for 15 or more minutes. you can call the line that best represents you. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. the next caller is from virginia. caller: i would like to talk about campaign-finance reform. until american people pay for

the campaigns of their candidates, who do you think owns them when they get to d.c.? do you think that they are owned by the people who bought and paid for their candidacy? host: what do you think? caller: i think they are bought and paid for, and the whole thing as a fiasco until we take the money to elect these people out of their pockets. host: who do you think is a specific legislator who is bought and paid for? caller: everyone of them. host: give me a specific. caller: i have no specifics, but think about it. when you have a campaign that is not paid for by you, you are not even in the ballgame. if >> when our candidate gets to

washington, do you believe they belong to us? if they do, how come we have medical situations that are ridiculous? how come we have pharmaceuticals that are ridiculous? we are kidding ourselves with the democracy. we have no democracy until we pay for the candidates --. host: democrats line. hi. caller: in a way he is correct. democrats and republicans fun raise. the reason why i called was to talk about the past president, donald trump. he is a marketing guru.

and talk about fundraising. this guy can do absolutely that. he is a magnificat -- magnificent marketer. he is good at what he does. if they look past, just look front -- just look through him, i am originally from new york, he is not a good guy. the contractors i have worked with in my life, all the guys who have done business with donald trump, he is not a good guy. look into his past, dig up a little information on him, do a little research. i ask all the republicans out there, all the states, get on your google and do a little research on this man. he spent money on a fundraiser of children and he took that money and used it for his own good. do a little research. host: what is the contractor you

worked with that did business with donald trump? give us a name. caller: i don't think i should go there. i would have to ask that person if i could use their name. i don't really want to go there. host: is there a company in general you can cite that has done business with donald trump? give me a name. caller: cannot go there. i cannot do that. it would not be a good thing to do to give out names when i haven't been given the process to do that, they haven't given me the permission to do that. but what i am saying, republicans, do a little research on this guy. you are all going to be extremely, you are not going to be looking through the colored glass anymore. host: rose in new jersey, the republican line, hello.

caller: i see dr. is who i has to say was highly respected colleague in the operating room. suddenly, he is on television selling garbage as nutritional supplements. at stuff that doesn't even have fda monitoring or anything. there could be anything in there. and now he is running for senator. his opponents had a very serious accident and he was related to another aspect of it. he could be very severely injured. what he is running for could really drop that at any time. i could go to the other states. but the point is, there is a certain minimum in terms of the

quality and health of the candidates. their health should be made public. host: if you are in the neighboring state of new jersey, why are you so concerned with pennsylvania politics? caller: because i am familiar with that state. it is my home state. the other thing i think is most important to keep in mind is if you look at how much we gain from vehicles roaming around the planet mars with no people in it , and maybe 20 or 30 roemer's, to descend a human being over there, human space exploration has been so phenomenal.

human space exploration has been a cartoon. it has done absolutely nothing for discovering about space. host: ok, that is david baron in new jersey. we invite you to stay tuned for our next guest, lori garver who wrote a book talking about her experiences at nasa. nasa served as, served as a deputy administrator there. she will talk about the launch of artemis today. all of that coming up in just a few minutes from now if you're interested in sticking with us. let's hear from california on our independent line. hello. caller: good morning. i have a question because i don't have a computer so i can't do any fact checking on anything. my question is, is it marsha lacked burn from tennessee, showed up in taiwan after all the talk when pelosi went? if anybody can check that, that

was on the in tv news. i have spectrum and i just want to know if that is true or not. host: why is that important to you if i may ask? caller: the way she will put everybody down, and then she goes up there. her words were 'i underestimated about the chip and the importance of taiwan and we shouldn't let china bully us. " it is almost like pelosi said, we are not going to let anybody bully us. mccarthy and all these people were making so much fun of pelosi going up there for politics. was she there? marsha blackburn from tennessee. that is what i want to know. if anybody is listening and they

can call in and say what she there or not. host: that is lupe and california. political reporting that beto o'rourke, texas candidate for governor, a bacterial infection on sunday. my symptoms have improved. he has been discharged from the hospital according to campaign manager. he was husband -- he was diagnosed with a bacterial infection receiving antibiotics. and then he said he would be "back on the road --." david from ohio, go ahead. caller: i have one question. can anybody confirm if china has

any people on the ground in taiwan helping the russians. i mean -- host: why do you think that is important, caller? why do you ask? caller: america needs to put boots on the ground. host: go ahead and finish your thought, david. caller: as americans, we cannot let these bullies try to push us all over the map. host: ok.

bj from texas is next. republican line. hi. caller: i think the subject you were starting to talk about was the new vaccine. the vaccine has only been tested on mice and we already had a vaccine rollout of saffron -- several different versions that have proved to be unaffected. when i got vaccinated as a child polio, measles, these vaccines prevent you from getting this. it was in a vaccine that help you through it even though you were going to get it. these vaccines are not only ineffective, but they have proven to been harmful to healthy people. they are saying thousands of people have died as a result of these vaccines that rolled out. there is no studies on that. there is nobody talking about that. host: where did you find that

about the thousands? caller: excuse me? host: you talked about thousands of people who have died, where did you get that? caller: the actual science of things rather than just trying to throw out propaganda and scare the public. host: what is their medical background? caller: i got covid but i was never vaccinated. i got over covid in three days. i know people who were never vaccinated and got covid and recovered in three or four days. it was a different kind of flu. this is an influenza. and now we are going to roll out all these new kind of vaccine. monkeypox and other things. now we have this new vaccine. you brought up this vaccine -- host: it is a booster shot for the omicron variant. caller: look at our president,

how many booster shots has he had? how many times has he gotten covid? and now look at beto o'rourke. they are saying it is a bacterial infection. i will bet you $1000 that he got a form of covid. host: let's hear from chase in panama, florida on the independent line. caller: i only have a few comments and one is a question. i am wondering why citizens serving in the military who are republicans who will continue to blindly vote republican when their party is destroying the democracy for which you took an old to protect. that is my question. the other comment has to do with lindsey graham's comment about writhing in the street. to me, that is governing by fear. that is some that the republican

party does pretty well. i have not heard anyone in the media said too much about oz having dual citizenship. i was under the impression if you are in congress, you should be a citizen of the united states only. not having a citizenship to the other country. host: in new york, democrats line, go ahead. caller:hi, i just want to say thanks to c-span. i have only been watching the past two years and i really appreciate your presence. we can hear comments from the full spectrum across the country.

i texted because i couldn't get through earlier and my text had been about overtime introducing more and more the religious control in our government. that and the introduction of citizens united. those were two really bad moves and we are seeing the impact of that. it is supposed to be a government for the people, by the people. when we vote our party on the democrats, when we vote our party into office, we should be taking action to turn those

things around because otherwise it is just going to keep going in that direction. host: if i may ask, when you bring up the religious argument, what do you point to specifically? caller: i remember hearing a story years ago, i cannot tell you exactly what it was, for example, the pledge of allegiance. when it was originally mentioned -- when it was originally written, there was no mention of god. you are pledging allegiance to the flag, to the nation. not to any particular religion. and that was introduced. and it has been introduced here and there in different aspects. and you can see, for example in the republican side, even on the subject of abortion. they push the subject based off

of religion. i don't have any business telling any family, any woman what she should be doing with her body. and no one should be telling me what i should be doing with my body. host: thank you. one more call. this is from susan. susan is from massachusetts. republican line. caller: hi, pedro. the biggest story than media seems not to want to write about is the fbi injecting themselves into the 2020 election. ceiling hunter biden laptop. and you wonder why he won. we should have him under oles

along with --. they are corrupt. we have to get rid of these --. host: for those of you who participated, thanks for doing so. up next, we continue our discussion in light of the artemis launch. the author of escaping gravity, joining us next on washington journal. >> over the past 24 years and in partnership with the library of congress, both media has provided uninterrupted coverage of the national book festival.

featuring hundreds of authors and get. on saturday, book tv returns live and in person to the library of congress --. all day long you will hear and interact. such as library of congress -- gregor quinn smith and more. the library of congress national book festival live saturday beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span two. at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. here many of those conversations during c-span's podcast presidential recordings. >> the nixon tapes are part private conversations, part deliberations and 100% unfiltered. >> the main thing is it will pass. my heart goes out to those people in texas who are

overzealous. i am sure you know if i could have been a little bit less a politician and more time being a president, i -- but i didn't know they were doing. >> on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> there are a lot of places to get political information, but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from, or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here, or here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> washington journal continues.

host: lori garver, welcome to c-span. guest: i think there was a really good chance it wasn't going to go today. most rockets have whether to deal with and working through some technical kinks. the first time rocket of this complexity, i think it was expected. so many of my friends and colleagues down in florida, i feel bad for them. this shouldn't have any bearing on the long-term operations. i think we are going to work through a couple of these things probably over the coming weeks. host: will there be motivation to keep working through because of setbacks like this? guest: of course. there have been so many setbacks that the motivation is there.

it has been more than 10 years in the making. people on it prepping for a launch, i think it takes a lot of care to do. they are familiar with the different elements of this rocket because so many are reused from the space shuttle. it is an entirely different configuration. it is a new generation of engineers for the most part. most of these people didn't grow up at nasa with apollo. they are learning the ropes and i think they are going to be very careful about launching. today wasn't a question with this problem. they need to understand that before they can move forward. host: you served from 2009 to 2013. guest: i never touched a piece

of hardware. but this vehicle was created during the obama administration. we did not propose building such a vehicle. we proposed that a private sector was the right way to go forward with this launching and national -- and nasa should focus on those things. but congress had a different idea and put the money in for this rocket back in 2010 when i was at nasa. that is not entirely the whole story because nasa people, industry people who have these contracts on the space shuttle, they wanted to continue. i would not say this was first nasa. it was the obama administration who didn't feel this was the proper path. this rocket is bigger, this rocket is something that the current structural base should

be there lane to do. now that we have the private sector trying to do that as well, there are chapters yet unwritten. host: it is territorial. guest: it is territorial. in my view it is so wrong. our government isn't here to compete with a private sector. the government should be driving the technology, allowing private sector to lower cost, innovate and do these things so that nasa can do the next thing. there is some big policy questions ahead. this was a very expensive undertaking. we were told it would be $10 billion. it has been 10 -- it has been 23 billion. the rocket another 20 billion. i don't think today's batch has really too much to do with that other than this is a complex system and the government has

been working it for so long. they are going to continue. host: our guest here until 10:00. you can call on the line. (202) 748-8000, for those of you in the eastern time zones. (202) 748-8001, for those of you in the mountain and pacific time zone. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. where was the greatest area of transformation needed? guest: it was in the rockets and how we were going to go about working with the private sector to launch the rockets. today's launch with a partnership with boeing and rocket time and all the big aerospace companies were paid to build this. that is one of the reasons it was so expensive. the transformation i thought was necessary, and not just me, many people, at nasa in the 90's, we

all felt the space shuttle would be filed on by rockets that were owned and operated by industry, not the government. that didn't happen for a variety of reasons. we were able to transition and transform to the space station, but not be safe. the transformation is not safe. host: "i became the target and was accused of destroying the spaceflight forever. it wasn't meant to start a war. i was trying to start a rescue mission. that is the quote.

give the context of that. guest: the context of that is nasa, since apollo has been wanting to do the same thing. it is natural for bureaucracy, it is natural for government. nasa is supposed to see about the future. the things we have benefited most from nasa are when we are aligned with the national goals and helping achieve those. but nasa has been separate. they are a part of a little family of their own. they like doing things like building domestic rockets. i was attacked because the head of nasa was an astronaut. he liked the status quo and president obama really wanted the very best for the space program and for nasa and was aligned with those transformational vision, but when it came to votes on the hill and arm twisting senators who had a lot of jobs in the

district, they put forth the right budget but they didn't use their political trades to get it passed. they were focused on health care. i ended up having to spearhead this and taking a lot of shots. that has played out in a way that most people recognize. i was on the right path and the commercial space launches have been doing it. spacex has delivered way more than i think nasa would have ever envisioned. nasa's rocket has been harder, taken longer and --. host: when you wrote that, who was the ministry or at the time? guest: charlie bowman. he was the head of nasa. he was an ash and marine general. currently general nelson is ahead of nasa. he was the senator from florida

who, if you had to say who is responsible for us having this rocket, it would be him. he would be pleased with the credit. she calls it the monster rocket. host: charlie bolden, bill nelson have the same philosophy with things built by nelson? -- by nasa? guest: they did have the same philosophy. in 1980 six, bill nelson was a congressman who got a ride --. bill nelson really forced president obama's hand to get charlie appointed to the position. that is what led to all of this. it isn't like there is something with sl as that is fundamentally

not going to work. i still think it's a word. the opportunity cost is a real question. what could we have done with this $43 billion over the last 20 years? likely within maybe a year, be overtaken by the private sector without investments. these big rockets being developed by elon musk company and blue origin, jeff bezos his company, they are usable. they are so much cheaper. they use modern technology. these space shuttle engines were designed in the 1970's. host: let's hear from a caller. this is dale and marilyn. you're on with lori garver.

dale, go ahead. caller: hi, thank you so much for having me. i am retired from nasa in 2005. and i met mr. bolton at a hubble gathering. he was the commander that put the hubble space craft, the hubble to look -- hubble telescope into space. that was exciting for me. but anyway, i have a specific question regarding the satellite that i used to work on when i retired was called herbs. earth resource budget --. in 2005 we decommissioned it and was going to have to circle for 17 years before it d orbits. here it is 17 years later and it is scheduled to come in in 2023. there is a problem with the

spacecraft. the tank is made of titanium. carries benzene gas. that tank will not burn up on reentry. i was wondering if nasa is tracking this. you may not know the details. will there be any warning if space degree -- space debris will be coming in next year? guest: i don't of the specifics of this particular satellite. assuming it is still intact, it is most certainly being tracked, as they should be doing. we have done this successfully many times. there are examples when skyla,

back in the 1970's, little parts that came over australia, and no one was hurt. these are issues nasa working with counterparts as they do a lot of this tracking as well. they should very much be able to direct it into the correct termination points on earth. host: when it comes to the goal of artemis itself, eventually mars, what do you think of that mission? guest: the goal of artemis is the right direction. going back to the moan in a way that is sustainable and different than apollo. we have always said since we went, next time will not just be flags and footprints. not that that is all we got from apollo. going in a way that reduces the cause, allows you to develop a base, and covert time which i

also think is a very unique part of this mission, -- craters on the moon. that could allow you to reduce the cost for explorations to mars. people are excited about that. that vision is the right one. it is a question about what are you going to get out of it? what we got out of apollo was not just global leadership, but it was technologies that return incredible benefits to society. and that first view of the earth from space. at caller wishes talking about and earth satellite, that was a huge thing we have been able to do from space. if you are working in a way that expands outward, international

cooperation and working with a private sector can be a very meaningful things to do. how much funding are we putting into something that has already been done is my greatest concern about this industry -- about this. host: -- with his support what artemis one is currently doing? guest: since i haven't been at nasa for a while, they are not only transporting astronauts to and from the space station, they have been testing it, it hasn't gone the orbit yet, but it lands. reusable means not parachuting into the ocean and lifting somebody out, it is laying -- it is landing on a tale of fire. boosters being launched.

spacex has now gotten a country from nasa. what nasa envisions will dock. how do we think starship is going to get there? it is going to launch. there are some complexities. they need to refuel on orbit, etc.. if it were to be redundant, ultimately. and nasa requires it to work to land on the moon. that is what is really interesting about this dual pass. host: this is from morton in michigan. hello. caller: i am 84. when the sputnik fiasco started,

the government panicked and it didn't need to panic because the russians, at that time, had a very crude, atomic bombs. and to launch a little satellite from a big rocket that they had for their real heavy crew weapons was no big challenge. joseph would crude, right after kennedy made his statement, crew wrote a book or an article about why i am not going to the moon. if he were alive, i think he would write another book about why i am not going to mars. the situation here is well stated by your presenter in that

we are spending so much money. i have on my shelf about 18 pages of federal hearings about apollo one. and then we have challenger and columbia problems. i wholeheartedly agree -- go with, as she indicated, the private sector. host: caller, thanks. guest: i am from michigan so of course i'm going to resonate with your comments. i talk about early sputnik in my book, escaping gravity. i have the same sense as the caller. this is something we reacted to. in the book i revealed some of the documents released by the cia 50 years after the launch that showed eisenhower was not at all frightened by it.

a thank you note, it had kept it from being a problem when we did. it was not threatening. some of those same forces who are keeping this from being done out there start --. i appreciate these are things we should be doing, but at what cost. host: this is from lily. she sent us the text this morning asking "what do you think of the enthusiasm?" guest: i am not sure we lost our enthusiasm for space. everyone was excited the first time we went to the moan. it was the first. there were protesters there. not everyone agrees with everything.

if you look at what nasa is doing, there is so much enthusiasm. nasa as an agency has more twitter followers than any other organization than the white house. further to look scope -- telescope photographic images, you are getting millions of people interacting with these social media and academics are already rewriting textbooks. there is a lot of excitement for space. when you look at launch is now from the space station, i think people who don't agree about a lot of things to that it is positive for humanity. ask the question of how you do it and maximizing the value. host: another caller is asking

if war is inevitable. guest: hopefully not. helps us to communicate, knowing our geo positions, we all use these orbits. we will suffer, as you have seen a couple of times, you have debris fields that are going to make it difficult to operate in space. industry is working in concert with government to be able to have some resiliency with space operations. hopefully not war. the united states is a clear leader. in human spaceflight, there is

not much question. we have partnering with the russians at the space station. but we have planned going back to the moan with artemis that are well beyond. china has really started space stations like where we were in the 1970's and 80's. overall, based technology, the u.s. is undoubtably the leader and needs to stay there. these are things that don't have as much to do with nasa but our national intelligence is very tied to space assets. all of that is enhanced right now by these partnerships with industry. whether they are able to be more nimble. the launch because has created huge benefits for our nation. the other countries are yet having those advances. host: let's hear from carl in west virginia. go ahead. caller: nasa is a waste of

taxpayers money. defense industry is way beyond human comprehension of what we have done in space. we have been beyond the moan. the power is -- the problem is, our bodies have to get adapted to space. you lose three senses of the six senses you have once you leave the planet. i guess you can guess what they are. so that is why we haven't traveled any further than the moan. because we cannot live out there. we are bound to earth and this is where we are going to stay. host: ok. caller, thank you. guest: there are a lot of people who share that view and i don't. i believe more than a lot of people at nasa for humanity moving beyond orbit.

radiation is something we have to understand, but we can protect was shielding. you are not going to spend years going places. even a round-trip for mars is at a point where humans will have a hard time to sustain that. this is not for the government to spend huge amounts of its money. we are not in the constitution. to the extent that we are returning benefits of value, which do include national security as well as our welfare, and certainly our economic advancements, these are things that people can disagree about, but we haven't yet reached the limits about how humans can expand in space. host: this is from kevin in

ohio. caller: hey, first time getting through. i am so excited. i was six or seven years old. apollo, that was all i thought about. jets breaking the sound barrier, and the moan landing was just over the top for me. listening to -- tyson on a youtube segment, he talks about how we lost when nasa started to privatize, we lost that momentum in the space program. how it affected may america's morale. i served in the air force and saw many different aircraft. i grew up watching.

this jeff bezos privatization thing smacks the politics. if you can just do like the military does and contract out and then the american people own the software and the hardware, you are talking and i hear the small governments and between the lines. this stuff in government is a good thing. host: ok, gotcha caller, thanks. guest: it was a 30 year program. it was bipartisan when it was canceled. the bush administration canceled it. when the obama administration came in, we ask them, it wasn't really any way to expand those 13 year contract.

contracting with a private sector just like the --. when we have private sector investing their own money, whether those be companies owned by these billionaires, that is advancing our economic welfare. and boeing is one of the winners of the competition to launch. they just haven't been successful in doing that. they are competing with spacex which has since to been -- which has since to be doing it better for less money. a billion dollars trash -- instead of spending a billion dollars for ash and not to get to the space station like in the old days, --. host: there was a time we relied on the russians to do that. i read you were talking about training yourself. guest: as i explained in the

book, i was medically certified to go to space. this was to be a private spaceflight. it was before the shuttle accident. and the nasa space agency --. i have sponsors when i was there. lance bass from the boy band instinct showed up and we did some training, which was fun. you'll have to get the book to hear that story. host: the title of the book, you --. guest: they came to nasa because

they liked what we were doing. i called him that because it was their military callsign. it was a political pose. over time we have successfully diversified nasa. host: how were women treated at nasa when you were there? guest: i had better experiences at nasa and in the private sector. i was attacked for my views and i think some of that was with gender language. i was a softer target since the administrator was a military

marine general and astronaut. we have a space that is predominantly male where we like women have opinions that we disagree with and we have to follow them. [laughter] coming up through the space industry. host: we have rose. caller: i heard there are something are -- i heard something there are like 5000 satellites in the stratosphere and there is a whole lot of space trash up there. i was wondering, what is happening with cleaning up the

trash? why do we need so many satellites? different countries putting satellites up? guest: there are now after 50 years at the space program, left over satellites. in orbit, various orbits around the earth. but space is not crowded, per se. this has not been in huge issue so far. but it needs to be governed more completely. we have a shared responsibility in the u.s.. and nasa. luckily we have ports that

degrade the space degree whether they are smaller pieces or satellite. over time, those degrade and they burn up in the atmosphere. it is a natural cleansing. that doesn't mean it is not a problem. at some of the higher orbits can take decades, if not centuries to degrade. we are assuring when they are almost out of fuel, put themselves in a retrograde orbit and not become space degree -- space debris. host: we saw the last administration develop -- is this a necessary move? guest: this a's fords has embraced already. it is something people thought of well before president trump. they were very much encouraged

when he did it. it was far enough along but space is a domain that is new. compared to the atmosphere. including fire, transportation, national security and entertainment and tourism. host: thomas from minnesota, hello. caller: in response to the last caller, all these satellites are now 2300 scheduled for orbiting years in the future.

i cannot go out and look at the sky without a lot of satellites. the second comment i would make is that i think the space program is now being supported by once again a militaristic anxiety over who is going to control this or who is going to control that. administrators are host: got

your point caller, thanks. guest: as far as the night sky that used to be darker, -- ahead of scarlet -- ahead of starr lane, shading and pointing so it isn't as disruptive to astronomy. the questions generally about the military-industrial complex, i do get into in the book. i do fear it has taken over the program in if we really focused on those unique, scientific things that nasa could be doing.

when we talk about our problems here on earth, we have to remember so many aspects in space and why we even know we have a problem with climate on earth and communications and positioning are things that each of us recognize, or should. we as humanity would not have the advances we do in a positive way without them. host: you also point to members of congress. you write to members of congress, "representatives are often told -- when the government complies, the industry is acting on the government request. key congressional dishes, it becomes nearly impossible to change course. others have referred to -- dan and others have referred to this as the ice cream looking zone." guest: from the early 90's to

the early 2000, he really have the right idea. i learned from him because i work for him for five years. this industry, the giant self licking ice cream cone is not -- nasa. when you get contracts in a particular district, it is the member's job to want to continue. it is the company's job to keep them. what is missing is national leadership on the part of the president and the administration in order to set policies and right behavior for the company. it is only a handful of congress. maybe your goals are not tied to national goals. apollo, all committee members were paying attention.

now, it has now become a less healthy system. host: how did you get involved in space? guest: i started out working for john glenn whose presidential campaign 1993 and 1984 brought me to washington from college. from there i went to a place called the national space society. it was founded by -- in the 70's to help advance the space program when the post apollo, was interested. i have been doing this for nearly 40 years. these are issues that are important to the nation. host: here is joseph from texas. you're on with lori garver. go ahead. caller: everybody, good morning. i have a question about the new program the trump administration wanted to start a space force.

and how has the faa and other space fours, how is it coming together? and how does nasa play a part in this program? thank you. guest: sure. the space fours is coming together. it was a president trump with a lot of support in the military. certainly some controversy. but president biden continued it. at, nasa

-- host: you use another term in the book, space colleagues. what are they? guest: space colleagues going to space belief we needed to lower the cost. it was very expensive and we knew it wasn't going to create the space bearing civilization that was the goal. -- people hoping to -- but elon musk and jeff bezos are probably -- you're pushing the boundaries beyond where there are laws and regulations yet. and heroes to summon.

they saved tens of billions of taxpayer dollars and what they have been able to do helping nasa. guest: nasa has embraced commercial partnerships. we have always partnered with industry and we work with

rockwell and northrup and grumman. it has to be more beneficial to the public because we are not doing it for the first time an industry has an incentive for launching. if you can launch a government payload, that means you can launch a commercial satellite. we were not getting the return to this country that china and russia are getting. in the u.s., we are now the number one provider of launches around the world and that helps our bottom line. it's a transitional period. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] if host: as far as funding, where should it be?

i think nasa has a healthy budget and $25 billion is spent step people are comparing us to apollo and you can use a percentage of the budget, a percentage of the gdp but an actual purchasing power, we are still getting to the point -- it's the same purchasing power as we had as apollo. the bottom line is nasa is an investment in the future. i think we should be spending it in ways that have the most value and return. host: lori garber served in the -- and the obama administration. thanks for giving is your time. that's